Availability
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Arne Boberg on -
The Micro will require us to invest about $20k in tooling for the shorter molded grips. We want to build this in the future when the factory is up and running.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael R Stenerson on -
I like the looks of the shorty in the 3.3" barrel and would be curious if a rendition of the super shorty or micro with a 3.1" barrel would be possible.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael R Stenerson on
-
Not sure when you anticipate the factory being up and running...so just curious if you have a more specific timetable so I can make some decisions.
Michael R Stenerson said:I like the looks of the shorty in the 3.3" barrel and would be curious if a rendition of the super shorty or micro with a 3.1" barrel would be possible.
-
Permalink Reply by Arne Boberg on
-
The original "Shorty" design was 4.92" long. I thought it would be nice to have it under 5", which would make it a true "mouse gun" (that could deliver 475 fpe); however, it got too tight in front to leave enough room for the much-improved unlock block (Gen 8), so the length was increased to 5.1", with a 3.35" barrel. This length was then built in Gen 8 and Gen 9. When you think about it, other guns are 1 to 2.5" longer, which means they have that much room for "dead stop" of the slide. The XR9 design has eliminated that zone, so we are left with a dead stop that comes up very close to the takedown lever (which, by the way, is used as a barrel stop in other brands of firearms). Our takedown lever comes up close to the top cartridge of the magazine, so basically we have made the gun as short possible with the current takedown lever location. If we are able to come up with a different takedown method in the future, we might be able to chop 0.2" off the length of the gun.
-
Permalink Reply by VMole8 on
-
Does the current 5.1" OAL include the slight barrel protrusion from the front of the slide?
Arne Boberg said:The original "Shorty" design was 4.92" long. I thought it would be nice to have it under 5", which would make it a true "mouse gun" (that could deliver 475 fpe); however, it got too tight in front to leave enough room for the much-improved unlock block (Gen 8), so the length was increased to 5.1", with a 3.35" barrel. This length was then built in Gen 8 and Gen 9. When you think about it, other guns are 1 to 2.5" longer, which means they have that much room for "dead stop" of the slide. The XR9 design has eliminated that zone, so we are left with a dead stop that comes up very close to the takedown lever (which, by the way, is used as a barrel stop in other brands of firearms). Our takedown lever comes up close to the top cartridge of the magazine, so basically we have made the gun as short possible with the current takedown lever location. If we are able to come up with a different takedown method in the future, we might be able to chop 0.2" off the length of the gun.
-
Permalink Reply by Arne Boberg on
-
Yes- 5.1" is the true overall length of the XR9-S.
VMole8 said:Does the current 5.1" OAL include the slight barrel protrusion from the front of the slide?
Arne Boberg said:The original "Shorty" design was 4.92" long. I thought it would be nice to have it under 5", which would make it a true "mouse gun" (that could deliver 475 fpe); however, it got too tight in front to leave enough room for the much-improved unlock block (Gen 8), so the length was increased to 5.1", with a 3.35" barrel. This length was then built in Gen 8 and Gen 9. When you think about it, other guns are 1 to 2.5" longer, which means they have that much room for "dead stop" of the slide. The XR9 design has eliminated that zone, so we are left with a dead stop that comes up very close to the takedown lever (which, by the way, is used as a barrel stop in other brands of firearms). Our takedown lever comes up close to the top cartridge of the magazine, so basically we have made the gun as short possible with the current takedown lever location. If we are able to come up with a different takedown method in the future, we might be able to chop 0.2" off the length of the gun.
-
Permalink Reply by cmblake6 on
-
This thing is already miniscule. I am well impressed with the dedication to producing a product that will last, and be safe to operate, in a package this small.
-
Permalink Reply by Raymond on
-
As a consumer, I have to question the existence of a Boberg XR9-µ. I have two points to suggest, first I feel like you will introduce brand dilution and second shrinking the grip size any more is going to cost gripability. Ultimately by offering the micro you are introducing too many choices with no real distinguishing characteristics. My point is that you will introduce different magazines for the XR9-S and XR9-µ which may cause consumer confusion in addition to the frame differences. As a guy with girly sized hands (seriously small hands) I will attest that I struggle with a Kahr PM9 and I somehow conceive the XR9 series as being height competitive with that firearm. When gripping a Kahr PM9, my pinky just barely fits and I would need a grip extended magazine to use that firearm comfortably. Others may disagree with me however and I'd like to here their suggestion for you to go this route.
-
Permalink Reply by Arne Boberg on
-
I agree with you in many respects - especially the "brand dilution" aspect. From our end we would have to invest in new tooling for a shorter magazine and grip panels. The only real benefits are that we would have the smallest 9mm in height and width and the consumer would have a more pocketable shorter grip. The grip on the proposed Micro (.275" shorter than the longer XR9 grip) would still be more substantial than on a PM9 due to the deeper shape of the backstrap, and the "horn" on the magazine floorplate. The front strap length would be about the same as on the PM9. I have large hands and rely on the texturing of the PM9 grip to hang on since my fingers get very little purchase on the front strap.
An idea that came up was to introduce the Micro in either a .40 S&W or .45 ACP to create a true "pocket beast".
-
Permalink Reply by VMole8 on
-
I think it's important here to define what would constitute brand dilution for the Boberg pistol. Typically, brand dilution is the weakening of a brand's image of quality or creating confusion among customers as to what a brand represents as a design focus, value balance, or market niche through expansion into products that don't fit expectations or fail to stand out among competitors.
A hypothetical example would be if BMW, a brand known for well engineered luxury autos that also deliver a sporty feel and capability, were to put their own badge on the Mini Cooper line. Sure they're nice inside, both are sporty and Euro in feel, but the Mini isn't quite at the same level of refinement or sense of power, and the look just doesn't fit with BMW. Mini just has a more playful vibe, it attracts a more hipster set, and when people think of the Mini Cooper name, they have a certain expectation. BMW would have diluted their brand by blurring their image in people's minds and broadening the quality envelope of their brand a bit in the wrong direction.
Now let's take Glock for instance. They've got more variations of the same damned pistol design than anyone on the planet. What you don't see is a .22 free pistol or other slow-fire precision pistol. Why? Because no one would expect them to know how to make one that's better than, or even as good as, what's available already, and no one would expect them to care that much when their very valuable bread and butter has always been bland, simple, reliable combat pistols with spongy triggers that sell like crazy. If they tried to compete with Hammerli and Walther they'd get their asses handed to them because it just doesn't pass the sniff test.
These would be examples of brand dilution-- Doing things that just don't fit or make the brand look like it's loosing its focus, and expanding the brand into areas which fail to capitalize on comparative advantages or even accentuate weaknesses.
So what are the Boberg brand's focus and relative advantages? What fits? I'd say three things that can be known to the market at this point: Extra velocity for a given length and recoil impulse, elegant appearance, novelty of the mechanism. Let's also assume durable and reliable function, build quality, and finishing which justify the price.
These comparative advantages are most emphasized within the pocket and fully-concealed pistol market, where every bit of velocity is needed and every fraction of an inch is undesirable as long as the pistol is controllable for a few quick shots.
Within the realm of smaller is better, grip height matters. People's pockets and hands are different sizes, and comparisons among guns will be made with trade-offs in mind and hard dimensions dancing in their heads. If the gun people "really want" has two size options instead of one it will be bought by more people, especially when the second option makes that pistol "the smallest" and still beats a .38 SPL in capacity and power.
Options can certainly carry a manufacturing cost which have to be considered, but I strongly believe the shorter grip, being the part that prints most in IWB carry and demands pocket width and careful draw in pocket carry, would be a strong selling point to a large number of people.
Just as true brand dilution hasn't occurred with so many Glock size options of the exact same caliber platforms, it won't threaten to occur here until the Boberg line starts to venture into pistols of a non-readily concealable size and in calibers that reach a point of diminishing velocity returns at the barrel lengths being used when compared with the handling for a given purpose. 9mm, for instance, might make less sense from a 7 or 8 inch internally barreled tactical pistol, while a single action 10mm in such length might make a wonderful hunting pistol, with great velocity, without being unwieldy, and could be provided with elegant wood grips and a blued or stainless frame-- fitting from a brand that entered the market with refined styling and trigger feel, even in a micro defensive pistol, a relatively high price point, and presumably high production quality to match. The latter would be a brand extension which made clear sense.
Options are never a bad thing as long as they fit the niche the gun itself fits and are cost effective.
I strongly vote for the XR9-µ.
-
Permalink Reply by Scott on
-
Arnie, if you offer more than one model initially you will fail in business. Dont be tempted.
Offer the one product that beats the models of the Competition (Keltec PF9 and Ruger LCP)
Become very specialized and focused and lean to keep your costs down and
establish a positive cash flow and a reputation in the industry. THEN later
add new models based on apparent demand. Look at Keltec, they did not initially
screw around with options... Well maybe Keltec did after a few years they came
out with PF9 after PF11 was in market for a few years. Remember Henry Ford,
"any color they want as long as it is black"
Put all your energy into function and reliability. People are not buying
these to put on display.
-
Permalink Reply by Arne Boberg on
-
I always appreciate free advice - it offsets what I pay in legal fees!
© 2012 Created by Arne Boberg.
